Cooling Is Coming

[jimjamuser]

But it has to be related to the Coral Reefs dying, right?
Do you mean the dreaded, "Fish Covid" starting on coral reefs and migrating to the Arctic Ocean and causing the icebergs to melt?

[JMintzer]

There IS a relationship. Today's modern world is FULL of interrelationships, especially between the US and China, which we know are the world's biggest polluters. And China currently has a population of 1.4 Billion people. The world population is about 8 Trillion compare to about 1 Trillion in 1800. The Chinese middle-class increased rapidly and they are all driving vehicles that are burning fossil fuel, which is greatly adding to the problems of Global Warming. So, the Chinese population is a big factor in the increasing or decreasing pressure on Global Warming. China has handled its Covid problem badly and is desperate for a solution. Their Covid problem has decreased their factory outputs and decreased their middle class's driving habits. The overall result could (?) be to
produce less EXCESS CO2 and be good for the planet's environment and, hopefully, help combat Global Warming.

8 TRILLION people?

You sure about that?

And just repeating non sequiturs doesn't an argument make...

[JMintzer]

Isn't that what people call "a distinction without a difference"?

Not at all.

You can have psoriasis when you die and not die from psoriasis...

[JMintzer]

Do you mean the dreaded, "Fish Covid" starting on coral reefs and migrating to the Arctic Ocean and causing the icebergs to melt?

https://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/facepalm-gif-6.gif

[Byte1]

There IS a relationship. Today's modern world is FULL of interrelationships, especially between the US and China, which we know are the world's biggest polluters. And China currently has a population of 1.4 Billion people. The world population is about 8 Trillion compare to about 1 Trillion in 1800. The Chinese middle-class increased rapidly and they are all driving vehicles that are burning fossil fuel, which is greatly adding to the problems of Global Warming. So, the Chinese population is a big factor in the increasing or decreasing pressure on Global Warming. China has handled its Covid problem badly and is desperate for a solution. Their Covid problem has decreased their factory outputs and decreased their middle class's driving habits. The overall result could (?) be to
produce less EXCESS CO2 and be good for the planet's environment and, hopefully, help combat Global Warming.

There's an old saying that seem relevant now,. " I have to call BS on that..."

[sounding]

There IS a relationship. Today's modern world is FULL of interrelationships, especially between the US and China, which we know are the world's biggest polluters. And China currently has a population of 1.4 Billion people. The world population is about 8 Trillion compare to about 1 Trillion in 1800. The Chinese middle-class increased rapidly and they are all driving vehicles that are burning fossil fuel, which is greatly adding to the problems of Global Warming. So, the Chinese population is a big factor in the increasing or decreasing pressure on Global Warming. China has handled its Covid problem badly and is desperate for a solution. Their Covid problem has decreased their factory outputs and decreased their middle class's driving habits. The overall result could (?) be to
produce less EXCESS CO2 and be good for the planet's environment and, hopefully, help combat Global Warming.

If there is a relationship between man-made CO2 and global warming, then tell me ... how much has "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year? Otherwise it's a myth. What isn't a myth, is the satellite and surface data showing a 7-year cooling trend.

[Bill14564]

If there is a relationship between man-made CO2 and global warming, then tell me ... how much has "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year? Otherwise it's a myth. What isn't a myth, is the satellite and surface data showing a 7-year cooling trend.

Uggh, it just never ends…

Ironically, there has been a cooling trend for the last seven years because there was a particularly HOT year at about that time. While recent years still show a warming trend, if you choose to start at a particularly HOT point then even warm years look cooler.

With decades of data, you chose a point seven years ago because doing so showed what you wanted it to. Perhaps you didn’t notice that you chose an example of a warming climate to try to make your point that the climate is cooling… or maybe you thought no one would bother to look.

The next dozen times when you trot out the question of the seven years, please include this post - it will save me the time and trouble of doing it myself.

[sounding]

Uggh, it just never ends…

Ironically, there has been a cooling trend for the last seven years because there was a particularly HOT year at about that time. While recent years still show a warming trend, if you choose to start at a particularly HOT point then even warm years look cooler.

With decades of data, you chose a point seven years ago because doing so showed what you wanted it to. Perhaps you didn’t notice that you chose an example of a warming climate to try to make your point that the climate is cooling… or maybe you thought no one would bother to look.

The next dozen times when you trot out the question of the seven years, please include this post - it will save me the time and trouble of doing it myself.

Yes with each particularly hot wave, there will follow a particularly cold wave. This 7-year cooling trend just may be that Al Gore tipping point he was talking about which continues its downward trend. Fortunately, adding more CO2 actually helps global cooling, but that is just part of the answer. Stay tuned for more "cooling" topics.

[jimjamuser]

8 TRILLION people?

You sure about that?

And just repeating non sequiturs doesn't an argument make...
Yes, 7.8 Trillion to be more exact. I decided to round up.

[Kenswing]

Yes, 7.8 Trillion to be more exact. I decided to round up.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

[jimjamuser]

There's an old saying that seem relevant now,. " I have to call BS on that..."
As a matter of fact, I just heard a news reporter talking to a British News Reporter in China about a huge, HORRIFIC new SURGE in Covid deaths and hospitalizations due to China's lifting of the tight Covid restrictions. China 1st made the mistake of forcibly imprisoning whole condos of people to prevent an outbreak of Covid for the purpose of "maintaining social stability". Then when their masses got tired and rebelled, China's 2nd stupid move is to move too quickly to remove Covid restrictions - AGAIN in the name of "social stability". Now, they have a SURGE of Covid cases and NO "social stability". The best estimate is for one million DEATHS in the next year.

The already large number of unreported Deaths added to the 1 MILLION predicted deaths add up to much less industrial and other activity, which will affect CO2 in a significant manner (likely decreasing future potential worldwide Global Warming). That much population change in a top-polluting and populated country HAS TO HAVE A major effect on Climate Change.

[jimjamuser]

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
Just Google the current world population. And IF it IS true that no one takes me seriously, then I will just say that I tried my best to be informative. No one can please everyone!

[Kenswing]

Just Google the current world population.

I recommend you do the same. Pay a little more attention to how many zeros there are after the 7.8.

[DARFAP]

And the earth continues to turn, like it has got billions of years. Tired of these narratives...

[mtdjed]

Yes, 7.8 Trillion to be more exact. I decided to round up.

Wow! Thats rounding in a big way. 7.8 Trillion people at 98.6 F/each (or so). No wonder we have global warming.

[Taltarzac725]

And the earth continues to turn, like it has got billions of years. Tired of these narratives...

And it will without us on it trillions of more years. We are destroying our great grandchildren's world while arguing about established science.

[fdpaq0580]

Just Google the current world population. And IF it IS true that no one takes me seriously, then I will just say that I tried my best to be informative. No one can please everyone!

My search said 8 Billion a/o November.
So the planet is getting warmer as a result of the effects of industrialization, global habitat destruction, polution and over population. 8 billion humans, poisoning the land and water, decimating the old growth forests (the lungs of the planet), covering the land with concrete and filling the air with exhaust fumes. 8 Billion is more than enough to have a negative impact.

[sounding]

My search said 8 Billion a/o November.
So the planet is getting warmer as a result of the effects of industrialization, global habitat destruction, polution and over population. 8 billion humans, poisoning the land and water, decimating the old growth forests (the lungs of the planet), covering the land with concrete and filling the air with exhaust fumes. 8 Billion is more than enough to have a negative impact.

Earth can easily handle double or triple that. Who knows, maybe even more. There is safety in numbers, especially if you have another extinction asteroid event -- and even another black plague or something. As soon as the Greenland ice melts, that's lots more land for people -- and the Vikings might even return then to the "Green" lands. Survival is dependent on numbers -- the more better. The more CO2 the better -- and the more warmer the better. However more taxes is not better.

[fdpaq0580]

And the earth continues to turn, like it has got billions of years. Tired of these narratives...

To the best of my knowledge, TOTV forums are not required reading.

[fdpaq0580]

Earth can easily handle double or triple that. Who knows, maybe even more. There is safety in numbers, especially if you have another extinction asteroid event -- and even another black plague or something. As soon as the Greenland ice melts, that's lots more land for people -- and the Vikings might even return then to the "Green" lands. Survival is dependent on numbers -- the more better. The more CO2 the better -- and the more warmer the better. However more taxes is not better.

If humans were all hunter/gatherers, like our forebearers, I might, might consider it possibile. But with all our industry and wonderous and destructive technologies, no way. Humankind is a force to be reckoned with. A powerful and very world changing force.

[Taltarzac725]

If humans were all hunter/gatherers, like our forebearers, I might, might consider it possibile. But with all our industry and wonderous and destructive technologies, no way. Humankind is a force to be reckoned with. A powerful and very world changing force.

Especially since the use of atomic weapons and nuclear facility accidents.

I will bet someone else is watching us very carefully now and not just abducting specimens to take tests on for various experiments.

Global warming is very real and is extremely well documented. Global warming and climate change effects: information and facts (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/global-warming-effects)

[Byte1]

Especially since the use of atomic weapons and nuclear facility accidents.

I will bet someone else is watching us very carefully now and not just abducting specimens to take tests on for various experiments.

Global warming is very real and is extremely well documented. Global warming and climate change effects: information and facts (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/global-warming-effects)

And now we are introducing alien abduction into the conversation? C'mon man! :22yikes:

[Bay Kid]

Let's not forget the damage from 1 volcano can do. Don't laugh until you research the real damage caused.

[fdpaq0580]

Let's not forget the damage from 1 volcano can do. Don't laugh until you research the real damage caused.

I'm not laughing. But the volcano is a natually occuring geological force. Can't do much about that. We can, however, alter our own ways in order to minimize the impact that we have.

[sounding]

I'm not laughing. But the volcano is a natually occuring geological force. Can't do much about that. We can, however, alter our own ways in order to minimize the impact that we have.

Minimizing trash is good. Minimizing CO2 is not good.

[fdpaq0580]

And now we are introducing alien abduction into the conversation? C'mon man! :22yikes:

Ha ha. Why not? This could be fun. Let's see where it goes.

[Byte1]

Organic fuel has been used since man first learned how to produce fire and start cooking his steak. I am not going to worry about this world's condition in a thousand years, or even a hundred. I plan to use all the gasoline, natural gas, charcoal briquettes, wood for smoking, etc. We won't run out of oil in my lifetime, but if for some reason it did happen, there is plenty of other organic fuel available to burn. I am satisfied that the air is cleaner now than when I was a child. I will likely live to be 95-100+ years old before I pass and I plan to eat red meat until I can't. Computers were supposed to eliminate paper use, but I have more documents to shred than I can handle. If you want to eat vegan style, go for it. I don't care if you do, but don't try to force me to convert. If I become diabetic, I will cut back on my sugar consumption. If I start having blood pressure issues, I will cut back on my salt. Otherwise, I plan to enjoy my life on earth. If other countries do not like the way the U.S. lives then they can stop allowing all those millions to escape to this great country. If those other countries are jealous of our great lifestyles, they have the same ability as we did to get where we are today.
But back to the point, I always hear how "they" say man is causing global warming, but I have yet to see any proof. Now "they" attempt to say that since there is no record of climate change before man existed, then it didn't happen. SO, all those text books we were taught from when children were myth? Maybe I am wrong but seems to me we were taught that the giant dinosaurs died off due to climate change. Did mankind cause the climate to change? We were taught that glaciers caused our great mountain ranges. Did mankind cause the ice to melt?
Maybe folks refuse to believe in man caused climate change because billions of our tax dollars are wasted on endless research every year. Or, maybe some of us do not subscribe to man caused "climate change" because we were taught that climate change is always happening and always has happened, regardless of mankind's contribution.

[jimjamuser]

I recommend you do the same. Pay a little more attention to how many zeros there are after the 7.8.
OK if I did NOT get the zeros right, then I sincerely apologize. I posted that a couple of times and my point, MY MAIN point, was the COMPARISON that I made between the world population in 1800 (about the industrial revolution) and today - and that comparison was that the INCREASE in population over that time period was a factor of about 8. There are 8 times as many people on the planet today as there were in 1800. I really don't care too much about the zeros - a million million, a thousand million, a million billion.........NOT important.

What I thought was important was the GROWTH factor of EIGHT for the population after 1800. Because that is WHY the CO2 is now EXCESSIVE and we had no Global Warming problem in 1800, but today we have a man-made Global Warming problem.

[jimjamuser]

My search said 8 Billion a/o November.
So the planet is getting warmer as a result of the effects of industrialization, global habitat destruction, polution and over population. 8 billion humans, poisoning the land and water, decimating the old growth forests (the lungs of the planet), covering the land with concrete and filling the air with exhaust fumes. 8 Billion is more than enough to have a negative impact.
Thank you sincerely. OK 8 BILLION. I will now commit that to memory.

[jimjamuser]

Earth can easily handle double or triple that. Who knows, maybe even more. There is safety in numbers, especially if you have another extinction asteroid event -- and even another black plague or something. As soon as the Greenland ice melts, that's lots more land for people -- and the Vikings might even return then to the "Green" lands. Survival is dependent on numbers -- the more better. The more CO2 the better -- and the more warmer the better. However more taxes is not better.
Not true. I wrote in another post that there was a behavioral science experiment about putting more AND MORE rats in an enclosure. It went fine (for the rats) with just a few rats. But, with crowding they eventually KILLED each other. More of something is not always good. Having sufficient of something is preferable. Think about adding more and more SALT to each subsequent bite of steak - starts out good and then gets terrible.

I think that the US COULD (?) have more people, but that depends on the proper food, housing, infrastructure and etc for them. Today the US even has water problems for some people in some areas. And there are few people talking about what IS the IDEAL US population? I guess about 250 million. I don't comprehend the idea that more people are necessarily better. Animals like deer and bear regulate their population depending on the CHANGING environment. No one can tell me that humans are some intelligent SPIRITS that do NOT need space, food, and water. When some human goes without water for 3 years, then I will listen to someone that says the human population SHOULD be INFINITE. That just defies logic and COMMON SENSE !!!!!!

[mtdjed]

It a tie game at the end of regulation time.

[JMintzer]

Yes, 7.8 Trillion to be more exact. I decided to round up.

Only off by a factor of 1000... But close enough, I guess...

worl population - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=worl+population&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS873US874&sxsrf=ALiCzsak-8u1L8LPlxZAO2MF7RbqZtjwYw%3A1671385538713&ei=wlGfY4H_KvTY5NoPtfON4AE&ved=0ahUKEwiB6MSq3IP8AhV0LFkFHbV5AxwQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=worl+population&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIMCCMQsQIQJxBGEPsBMgo IABCABBCxAxAKMgoIABCABBCxAxAKMgcIABCABBAKMgcIABCAB BAKMgoIABCABBCxAxAKMgoIABCABBCxAxAKMgoIABCABBCxAxA KMgcIABCABBAKMgoIABCABBCxAxAKOgoIABBHENYEELADSgQIQ RgASgQIRhgAUIUCWIUCYM4VaAFwAXgAgAE0iAFfkgEBMpgBAKA BAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)

[fdpaq0580]

It a tie game at the end of regulation time.

Great! Now, for the first overtime.

[fdpaq0580]

Thank you sincerely. OK 8 BILLION. I will now commit that to memory.

You are welcome. When you went from billions to trillions I thought it might have been that auto-correct was inserting its own number. That happens to me a lot and I have to correct it often.

Anyway, here is a little food for thought for those who don't think 8 billion humans with all their equipment and technology can't possibly have an effect on the climate.
One beaver in a valley of trees with a stream can, over a relatively short time, dam the stream, flood the valley, and completely change the micro-climate of the valley and surrounding area.
No, I am not suggesting beavers are a problem. Just a demonstration that if one small rodent with no tools or tech can do that, then the combined effects of 8 billion humans with machines, explosives, tech, etc, can easily effect climate on a global scale.

[Byte1]

You are welcome. When you went from billions to trillions I thought it might have been that auto-correct was inserting its own number. That happens to me a lot and I have to correct it often.

Anyway, here is a little food for thought for those who don't think 8 billion humans with all their equipment and technology can't possibly have an effect on the climate.
One beaver in a valley of trees with a stream can, over a relatively short time, dam the stream, flood the valley, and completely change the micro-climate of the valley and surrounding area.
No, I am not suggesting beavers are a problem. Just a demonstration that if one small rodent with no tools or tech can do that, then the combined effects of 8 billion humans with machines, explosives, tech, etc, can easily effect climate on a global scale.

And how many beavers does it take to influence the climate? I believe you have mistakenly or misunderstood the definition of climate. Perhaps you meant to suggest that this one beaver's flatulence increases the temperature?
If you are suggesting that mankind is causing global warming, one could surmise that getting rid of mankind would cause an ice age.
Maybe when some suggest that an increase in population causes warming, then that would mean that high population areas should be very warm and low population areas very cold, OR maybe the large population is due to the warm weather drawing those that enjoy warm weather to the area.
Like I have stated before, once you all figure out how to manipulate the climate, please create a warmer yearly average temperature up North so that I can enjoy areas that have mountain ranges. This flat land of Florida is kind of boring. :thumbup:

[jimjamuser]

Only off by a factor of 1000... But close enough, I guess...

worl population - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=worl+population&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS873US874&sxsrf=ALiCzsak-8u1L8LPlxZAO2MF7RbqZtjwYw%3A1671385538713&ei=wlGfY4H_KvTY5NoPtfON4AE&ved=0ahUKEwiB6MSq3IP8AhV0LFkFHbV5AxwQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=worl+population&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIMCCMQsQIQJxBGEPsBMgo IABCABBCxAxAKMgoIABCABBCxAxAKMgcIABCABBAKMgcIABCAB BAKMgoIABCABBCxAxAKMgoIABCABBCxAxAKMgoIABCABBCxAxA KMgcIABCABBAKMgoIABCABBCxAxAKOgoIABBHENYEELADSgQIQ RgASgQIRhgAUIUCWIUCYM4VaAFwAXgAgAE0iAFfkgEBMpgBAKA BAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
I personally apologized for my grievous mistake. I gave myself 20 lashes with my favorite whip and did 80 push-ups to TRY to make amends. My crack staff that normally catches all my mistakes also has been punished.

[jimjamuser]

You are welcome. When you went from billions to trillions I thought it might have been that auto-correct was inserting its own number. That happens to me a lot and I have to correct it often.

Anyway, here is a little food for thought for those who don't think 8 billion humans with all their equipment and technology can't possibly have an effect on the climate.
One beaver in a valley of trees with a stream can, over a relatively short time, dam the stream, flood the valley, and completely change the micro-climate of the valley and surrounding area.
No, I am not suggesting beavers are a problem. Just a demonstration that if one small rodent with no tools or tech can do that, then the combined effects of 8 billion humans with machines, explosives, tech, etc, can easily effect climate on a global scale.
I remember reading something similar. Before wolves were RE-INTRODUCED into a Federal park (Yellowstone, I think). Before that, the wolves had all been killed by poisoned bait and bounties for hunters. During that BEFORE period, deer and elk would graze close to the creeks in the area. Their hoofs would kick up dust and cause silt and mud to form in the creek. The mud would settle on the fish eggs (I believe trout) and kill their eggs. After the WOLVES were re-introduced, the deer and elk would avoid the banks of the rivers and creeks which would make them OPEN targets for the wolves. The creek water became cleaner and the fish population grew.

I believe that beavers create deep holes that fish prefer and their dams act against flooding and serve as a filter for cleaner water. Both examples show how NATURE prefers a balance. And the converse of that is that mankind and especially a lot of mankinds can mess up that balance. Humans create an excess of CO2 that there are NOT enough plants, forests, and oceans to restore to balance out. I have given many examples, but the one that bothers me a lot is the acidification of oceans and the bleaching and killing of reef coral - it's like ripping up a beautiful painting !

[jimjamuser]

And how many beavers does it take to influence the climate? I believe you have mistakenly or misunderstood the definition of climate. Perhaps you meant to suggest that this one beaver's flatulence increases the temperature?
If you are suggesting that mankind is causing global warming, one could surmise that getting rid of mankind would cause an ice age.
Maybe when some suggest that an increase in population causes warming, then that would mean that high population areas should be very warm and low population areas very cold, OR maybe the large population is due to the warm weather drawing those that enjoy warm weather to the area.
Like I have stated before, once you all figure out how to manipulate the climate, please create a warmer yearly average temperature up North so that I can enjoy areas that have mountain ranges. This flat land of Florida is kind of boring. :thumbup:
Actually, when you think about it, all other things being equal, high-population areas ARE definitely warmer than the corresponding low-population areas. Take Houston during the summer, it is much hotter than the cooler rural areas outside Houston. Concrete high rises surrounded by asphalt streets are a heat trap with very few trees. In the rural areas the grass, brush, and trees are pulling up water from the soil by capillary action and allowing the leaves to provide evaporative cooling.

[jimjamuser]

You are welcome. When you went from billions to trillions I thought it might have been that auto-correct was inserting its own number. That happens to me a lot and I have to correct it often.

Anyway, here is a little food for thought for those who don't think 8 billion humans with all their equipment and technology can't possibly have an effect on the climate.
One beaver in a valley of trees with a stream can, over a relatively short time, dam the stream, flood the valley, and completely change the micro-climate of the valley and surrounding area.
No, I am not suggesting beavers are a problem. Just a demonstration that if one small rodent with no tools or tech can do that, then the combined effects of 8 billion humans with machines, explosives, tech, etc, can easily effect climate on a global scale.
Tech can produce a lot of heat. I am thinking about the HUGE energy using warehouses that kept track of BitCoin transactions.

[fdpaq0580]

And how many beavers does it take to influence the climate? I believe you have mistakenly or misunderstood the definition of climate. Perhaps you meant to suggest that this one beaver's flatulence increases the temperature?
If you are suggesting that mankind is causing global warming, one could surmise that getting rid of mankind would cause an ice age.
Maybe when some suggest that an increase in population causes warming, then that would mean that high population areas should be very warm and low population areas very cold, OR maybe the large population is due to the warm weather drawing those that enjoy warm weather to the area.
Like I have stated before, once you all figure out how to manipulate the climate, please create a warmer yearly average temperature up North so that I can enjoy areas that have mountain ranges. This flat land of Florida is kind of boring. :thumbup:

I'm sorry, but I can't take this reply seriously.
I never mentioned beaver flatulence. Where did you get that from?
As for your premise that getting rid of mankind would cause an ice age, you are wrong. If humans all disappeared over night the earth would very quickly reclaim all that we had altered and restore the natural balance. The rest of the world doesn't need us, but we need it. So let's quit screwing it up?.
Lastly, if I could control the climate, I would try to maintain balance, not make the North warm just for you? Lots of folks enjoy the mountains, snow and all. And the annual resupply of fresh water is essential to all life, not just human.

[Taltarzac725]

I'm sorry, but I can't take this reply seriously.
I never mentioned beaver flatulence. Where did you get that from?
As for your premise that getting rid of mankind would cause an ice age, you are wrong. If humans all disappeared over night the earth would very quickly reclaim all that we had altered and restore the natural balance. The rest of the world doesn't need us, but we need it. So let's quit screwing it up?.
Lastly, if I could control the climate, I would try to maintain balance, not make the North warm just for you? Lots of folks enjoy the mountains, snow and all. And the annual resupply of fresh water is essential to all life, not just human.

It would probably take a while for the earth to find balance again but a small time as far as the age of the earth is concerned.

[Byte1]

Actually, when you think about it, all other things being equal, high-population areas ARE definitely warmer than the corresponding low-population areas. Take Houston during the summer, it is much hotter than the cooler rural areas outside Houston. Concrete high rises surrounded by asphalt streets are a heat trap with very few trees. In the rural areas the grass, brush, and trees are pulling up water from the soil by capillary action and allowing the leaves to provide evaporative cooling.

Correct, a populated area should be warmer than a non-populated area. However, you are not taking into consideration the Southern location of Houston. Moscow, Russia has something like five times the population of Houston and has a very cool average temp. Is it warmer than areas outside of the city. Of course. That only proves that you feel that humans should not be allowed to populate the world. Sorry, but like I have said before we are at the top of the food chain and will continue to live here. Nature will replenish the world as we expend it's resources. You may be able to prove that we influence our immediate environment, but you cannot prove that we have any influence on Climate Change. The climate WILL change whether we wish it or not. Another poster scoffed at my tongue in cheek request that if mankind can change the climate, would they please increase the temps in the Northern states so that I can enjoy the mountains in comfort. That poster took my statement as serious.
Sorry, but no one has proven that mankind has made any changes to climate change rotation, just as we have not changed the rotation of this planet. Spend all your money on this fallacy, since you all have so much to waste but I plan to continue to live without sacrificing. I will be considerate by disposing of my litter properly, but I will also continue to use fossil fuels. After all, what reason is there to leave them in the ground and not use them as GOD intended?

[fdpaq0580]

That poster took my statement as serious.
Sorry, but no one has proven that mankind has made any changes to climate change rotation, just as we have not changed the rotation of this planet. Spend all your money on this fallacy, since you all have so much to waste but I plan to continue to live without sacrificing. I will be considerate by disposing of my litter properly, but I will also continue to use fossil fuels. After all, what reason is there to leave them in the ground and not use them as GOD intended?

I'm that poster and the very first sentence of the post said that I could NOT take your comments seriously.

No one claims humans have changed the earth's rotation. But, through over population and our destruction of land and sea habitats, we have increased the rate of the warming.

And last, (tongue in cheek) lucky that God told you about what fossil fuels are intended for. The part about gas and oil refineries to operate IC engines, etc, wasn't in my Bible.

[golfing eagles]

I'm that poster and the very first sentence of the post said that I could NOT take your comments seriously.

No one claims humans have changed the earth's rotation. But, through over population and our destruction of land and sea habitats, we have increased the rate of the warming.

And last, (tongue in cheek) lucky that God told you about what fossil fuels are intended for. The part about gas and oil refineries to operate IC engines, etc, wasn't in my Bible.

You mean you don't have the latest Exxon-Mobil version?????? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

But seriously, I can't seriously take anyone who thinks 100 years of burning fossil fuels has significantly altered 4 million years of 100,000 yearlong cycles driven by the power of the sun and Earth's orbit, not to mention huge volcanic eruptions. It's the equivalent of thinking a single seasick passenger on a cruise line that vomits acidic stomach contents will lower the pH of the Pacific Ocean.

That being said, is it possible that our current and future activity will accelerate the current global warming cycle that started 20,000 years ago? Entirely possible, but so far there is no conclusive proof, just speculation, conjecture, and extrapolation of short-term data. Probably the best conjecture came from climatologists that are not financially beholden to the current political view, who have stated that human activity will at most delay the next period of glaciation by 5-10,000 years----but this is due to the rise of agriculture in Asia over the past 8,000 years, NOT you SUV. But they too could be wrong. Time will tell. But by time I mean thousands of years, NOT the idiotic time frame of 5 years that has been suggested by some.

[Taltarzac725]

It is going to be 29 in the Villages on Christmas. At that will be not that much warmer than the weather in Minneapolis, MN on Christmas. Access Denied (https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/minneapolis/55415/weather-forecast/348794)

[Byte1]

It is going to be 29 in the Villages on Christmas. At that will be not that much warmer than the weather in Minneapolis, MN on Christmas. Access Denied (https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/minneapolis/55415/weather-forecast/348794)

Good point! I also love it when someone attempts to explain how man has caused global warming which in turn causes extreme cold winters. Someone else suggested that Houston's great population has caused warming in Texas, so I was wondering how warm Moscow (which is about five times the population of Houston) has made Russia. I bet there are a few Ruskies that would welcome a few "C's" of warmer temps.
Disclaimer: I never professed to be a scientist or expert on the weather, so I tend to make my opinions based on common sense. I don't believe that mankind can perpetuate climate change, although I used to think that a nuclear explosion could cause a temporary winter weather change. That said, recently I believe that theory was debunked.

[sounding]

Good point! I also love it when someone attempts to explain how man has caused global warming which in turn causes extreme cold winters. Someone else suggested that Houston's great population has caused warming in Texas, so I was wondering how warm Moscow (which is about five times the population of Houston) has made Russia. I bet there are a few Ruskies that would welcome a few "C's" of warmer temps.
Disclaimer: I never professed to be a scientist or expert on the weather, so I tend to make my opinions based on common sense. I don't believe that mankind can perpetuate climate change, although I used to think that a nuclear explosion could cause a temporary winter weather change. That said, recently I believe that theory was debunked.

Correct. "Nuclear winter" and the "Runaway greenhouse effect" are both myths and will be debunked (especially the Venus "runaway greenhouse" myth) at January's Weather Club ... The Villages Weather Club (https://www.theweatherclubvillages.com/) In the meantime, ya'll enjoy CO2 induced global warming.

[fdpaq0580]

Good point! I also love it when someone attempts to explain how man has caused global warming which in turn causes extreme cold winters. Someone else suggested that Houston's great population has caused warming in Texas, so I was wondering how warm Moscow (which is about five times the population of Houston) has made Russia. I bet there are a few Ruskies that would welcome a few "C's" of warmer temps.
Disclaimer: I never professed to be a scientist or expert on the weather, so I tend to make my opinions based on common sense. I don't believe that mankind can perpetuate climate change, although I used to think that a nuclear explosion could cause a temporary winter weather change. That said, recently I believe that theory was debunked.

Common sense is not really that common and is often wrong. There is much in the world that is counterintuitive. For example, take the so-called magnetic hills, where it appears that gravity make things roll up hill. The lay of the land in these places creates an optical illusion and while things appear to be defying gravity, they, in reality, are not.

[fdpaq0580]

You mean you don't have the latest Exxon-Mobil version?????? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

But seriously, I can't seriously take anyone who thinks 100 years of burning fossil fuels has significantly altered 4 million years of 100,000 yearlong cycles driven by the power of the sun and Earth's orbit, not to mention huge volcanic eruptions. It's the equivalent of thinking a single seasick passenger on a cruise line that vomits acidic stomach contents will lower the pH of the Pacific Ocean.

That being said, is it possible that our current and future activity will accelerate the current global warming cycle that started 20,000 years ago? Entirely possible, but so far there is no conclusive proof, just speculation, conjecture, and extrapolation of short-term data. Probably the best conjecture came from climatologists that are not financially beholden to the current political view, who have stated that human activity will at most delay the next period of glaciation by 5-10,000 years----but this is due to the rise of agriculture in Asia over the past 8,000 years, NOT you SUV. But they too could be wrong. Time will tell. But by time I mean thousands of years, NOT the idiotic time frame of 5 years that has been suggested by some.

No! I don't have the Exxon-Mobile edition. I hope Wal-Mart sells them. 😀

The "100 years of burning fossil fuels" is only a part of the story that started when we first began to grow crops, build settlements. Settlements became cities. A few crops became huge factory farms with poisons and fertilizers that made their way into rivers, ground water and the oceans. Great forests that provided oxygen and neutraized CO2 were destroyed to make room for farms and livestock ranches that created more earth and air toxins, and the forests we needed were gone.
The land was transformed and huge cities built with factories and refineries and manufacturing that dumped their waste into the rivers. The acids and poisons again made their way into the environment, poisoning the air, land and sea and we had damaged the lungs of the earth again. As our population grew, we did ever more damage to the terrarium we call home, planet Earth. The industrial revolution along with our exponential population growth and habitat destruction has not created the warming, but it has sped up the process.
I know many don't believe it, don't want to believe it, refuse to believe it. I also know those same people won't change or alter their behavior in any way. Take it as science fiction if you like, but, think of all the commonplace things in todays world that were unbelievable science fiction only a mere 100 years ago, like your cellphone and other "miracles" of modern every day life.

[golfing eagles]

No! I don't have the Exxon-Mobile edition. I hope Wal-Mart sells them. 😀

The "100 years of burning fossil fuels" is only a part of the story that started when we first began to grow crops, build settlements. Settlements became cities. A few crops became huge factory farms with poisons and fertilizers that made their way into rivers, ground water and the oceans. Great forests that provided oxygen and neutraized CO2 were destroyed to make room for farms and livestock ranches that created more earth and air toxins, and the forests we needed were gone.
The land was transformed and huge cities built with factories and refineries and manufacturing that dumped their waste into the rivers. The acids and poisons again made their way into the environment, poisoning the air, land and sea and we had damaged the lungs of the earth again. As our population grew, we did ever more damage to the terrarium we call home, planet Earth. The industrial revolution along with our exponential population growth and habitat destruction has not created the warming, but it has sped up the process.
I know many don't believe it, don't want to believe it, refuse to believe it. I also know those same people won't change or alter their behavior in any way. Take it as science fiction if you like, but, think of all the commonplace things in todays world that were unbelievable science fiction only a mere 100 years ago, like your cellphone and other "miracles" of modern every day life.

So, we essentially stated the same thing. You agree that human activity did not create our current global warming, which has been going on for 20,000 years. The only point of debate is whether, and to what extent we have "sped up the process". At the extreme, some say not at all, and others cite 5 years. Both are highly unlikely, in fact, since the polar ice caps did not disappear in 2010 as predicted in 2001, the 5 year hypothesis can be chucked in the trash where it belongs. Probably thousands of years, but that guess is just that----a guess

[Byte1]

So, we essentially stated the same thing. You agree that human activity did not create our current global warming, which has been going on for 20,000 years. The only point of debate is whether, and to what extent we have "sped up the process". At the extreme, some say not at all, and others cite 5 years. Both are highly unlikely, in fact, since the polar ice caps did not disappear in 2010 as predicted in 2001, the 5 year hypothesis can be chucked in the trash where it belongs. Probably thousands of years, but that guess is just that----a guess

Some would call that "common sense." :beer3:

[JMintzer]

This flies in the face of our resident "Chicken Little"...

🌍 NASA: The Earth is greener now than it was 20 years ago (https://www.warpnews.org/human-progress/nasa-the-earth-is-greener-now-than-it-was-20-years-ago/)

[fdpaq0580]

So, we essentially stated the same thing. You agree that human activity did not create our current global warming, which has been going on for 20,000 years. The only point of debate is whether, and to what extent we have "sped up the process". At the extreme, some say not at all, and others cite 5 years. Both are highly unlikely, in fact, since the polar ice caps did not disappear in 2010 as predicted in 2001, the 5 year hypothesis can be chucked in the trash where it belongs. Probably thousands of years, but that guess is just that----a guess

Our difference, indeed, seems to be the time factor to eco-disaster for human kind. You seem to believe it is nothing to be concerned about. I think it is a problem that is already making itself known, and the sooner we begin to address it, the sooner we can correct it. Like a car accelerating downhill, the faster it goes, the more ground it will cover and it will take longer and be harder to stop. We are "oiloholics", and the first step is acknowledging that we have a problem.
If we don't begin soon, then I can imagine coastal cities where, instead of taxi's, people will get around in gondolas, like in Venice, Italy.

[Aces4]

Our difference, indeed, seems to be the time factor to eco-disaster for human kind. You seem to believe it is nothing to be concerned about. I think it is a problem that is already making itself known, and the sooner we begin to address it, the sooner we can correct it. Like a car accelerating downhill, the faster it goes, the more ground it will cover and it will take longer and be harder to stop. We are "oiloholics", and the first step is acknowledging that we have a problem.
If we don't begin soon, then I can imagine coastal cities where, instead of taxi's, people will get around in gondolas, like in Venice, Italy.


I think you’re focusing on the wrong catastrophe, you’re not tuned in to what really is happening. Potential, determined terroists are a far bigger threat now than any global warming threat.

[golfing eagles]

Our difference, indeed, seems to be the time factor to eco-disaster for human kind. You seem to believe it is nothing to be concerned about. I think it is a problem that is already making itself known, and the sooner we begin to address it, the sooner we can correct it. Like a car accelerating downhill, the faster it goes, the more ground it will cover and it will take longer and be harder to stop. We are "oiloholics", and the first step is acknowledging that we have a problem.
If we don't begin soon, then I can imagine coastal cities where, instead of taxi's, people will get around in gondolas, like in Venice, Italy.

Here's the problem with that reasoning:

Even if there wasn't a single human, or cow fart on Earth, in 20-25,000 years all that "eco-disaster" flooding of coastal cities and global temperatures of 4-6 degrees higher would occur ANYWAY. It has happened dozens of times in the last 4 million years without any help from humanity, and it will happen again. The last time it happened was about 15,000 years ago----and the evidence is cities off the coast of India and Japan, and possibly in the Caribbean and Mediterranean that predate the start of the latest warming cycle and are now under 200 feet of water since they were built on the coastline of the time.

So, even given the chicken little scenarios, all we could do is reduce/eliminate human contribution (by living in the stone age) and everything they fear will HAPPEN ANYWAY. Now, if the great concern is that we accelerate the time frame so it happens in 15,000 years instead of 25,000, have at it. By all means spend 100 trillion dollars to "combat" it. Unfortunately, that would be a fool's errand. To those who think it will happen in 5, or 50, or even 500 years---get off Fantasy Island, that isn't even remotely close to reality.

[fdpaq0580]

I think you’re focusing on the wrong catastrophe, you’re not tuned in to what really is happening. Potential, determined terroists are a far bigger threat now than any global warming threat.

Rogue states, terrorists, are indeed a problem. And the pressure of over population only makes it worse.
But the focus here is climate change. War could be another thread.

[fdpaq0580]

Here's the problem with that reasoning:

Even if there wasn't a single human, or cow fart on Earth, in 20-25,000 years all that "eco-disaster" flooding of coastal cities and global temperatures of 4-6 degrees higher would occur ANYWAY. It has happened dozens of times in the last 4 million years without any help from humanity, and it will happen again. The last time it happened was about 15,000 years ago----and the evidence is cities off the coast of India and Japan, and possibly in the Caribbean and Mediterranean that predate the start of the latest warming cycle and are now under 200 feet of water since they were built on the coastline of the time.

So, even given the chicken little scenarios, all we could do is reduce/eliminate human contribution (by living in the stone age) and everything they fear will HAPPEN ANYWAY. Now, if the great concern is that we accelerate the time frame so it happens in 15,000 years instead of 25,000, have at it. By all means spend 100 trillion dollars to "combat" it. Unfortunately, that would be a fool's errand. To those who think it will happen in 5, or 50, or even 500 years---get off Fantasy Island, that isn't even remotely close to reality.

If "we" weren't here, then "we" wouldn't have a problem. But, we are here. 8 billion of us, with numbers growing exponentially. The negatives of our current existence is also growing exponentially, and the 15,000 to 20,000 year time frame you give is quite likely much, much less than you think. Changes happen ever faster. We seniors will be gone before long and we won't be overly affected. But those very close behind us better learn to swim (tongue in cheek). Waterworld is on the way and Fantasy Island will be no more.
Living in the stone age is not required. Lowering birth rates and learning to make the best use of new technologies in all industries, from farming to manufacturing. Serious recycling of resources. Lots can and should be done to begin halting further destruction of the earth.

[golfing eagles]

If "we" weren't here, then "we" wouldn't have a problem. But, we are here. 8 billion of us, with numbers growing exponentially. The negatives of our current existence is also growing exponentially, and the 15,000 to 20,000 year time frame you give is quite likely much, much less than you think. Changes happen ever faster. We seniors will be gone before long and we won't be overly affected. But those very close behind us better learn to swim (tongue in cheek). Waterworld is on the way and Fantasy Island will be no more.
Living in the stone age is not required. Lowering birth rates and learning to make the best use of new technologies in all industries, from farming to manufacturing. Serious recycling of resources. Lots can and should be done to begin halting further destruction of the earth.

Maybe. But there is absolutely no scientific data to support a time frame. There is only conjecture, guessing, magical thinking and extrapolation of short term weather records. None of this supports neither a 15,000 nor 50-year time frame. However, I suspect those "closely behind us" will have as much in common with us as we have with cavemen. And they may very well have the technology to deal with the "problems we leave them"

[sounding]

If "we" weren't here, then "we" wouldn't have a problem. But, we are here. 8 billion of us, with numbers growing exponentially. The negatives of our current existence is also growing exponentially, and the 15,000 to 20,000 year time frame you give is quite likely much, much less than you think. Changes happen ever faster. We seniors will be gone before long and we won't be overly affected. But those very close behind us better learn to swim (tongue in cheek). Waterworld is on the way and Fantasy Island will be no more.
Living in the stone age is not required. Lowering birth rates and learning to make the best use of new technologies in all industries, from farming to manufacturing. Serious recycling of resources. Lots can and should be done to begin halting further destruction of the earth.

Golfing Eagles is correct. And, regarding destruction, CO2-induce, man-made global warming will destroy plants that aren't protected from global cooling -- Friday morning.